AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 218 wordsSat Pal, J.
Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, provisions of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have been violated inasmuch as petitioner was not given an option to be searched before the gazetted officer or a magistrate. The learned A.A.G., however, submits that it is a chance recovery. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the recovery of 30 Kgs of poppy husk, I am of the view it is a fit case for suspension of sentence and fine. Accordingly, I direct that substantive sentence awarded and the fine imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/ with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. The order shall be subject to the condition (i) that the appellant shall deposit his passport with the learned Sessions Judge/Designated Court and if he does not have the passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect, (ii) the appellant shall not leave the territory of district Sungrur except with the permission of the learned Session Judge/Designated Court.
JUDGMENTed accordingly.